Enewsletter

I love your Web site. I've been looking
for information like this for a long time, specifically regarding
how to approach people who don't see themselves as doing anything
wrong, who think very conventionally about nonhuman animals.
LK, Chicago, IL, 6/13/02

Announcements & News

For those unfamiliar with the focus group of vegetarians and non-vegetarians
in Seattle, Vegan Outreach previously passed along an
analysis.

In short, the middle-aged non-vegetarians interviewed said they
weren't going to go vegetarian, but if they did, it wouldn't be because
of graphic pictures, it would be to help their health. The vegetarians
said they were vegetarian for animal cruelty reasons. From this,
ARMEDIA concludes that the
health argument is the way to go. We disagree
that this is the correct conclusion to draw.

"Edmonton-based Lilydale Co-operative Ltd. was fined $2,500
after 284 live turkeys at a plant in British Columbia were "immersed
in a scalding tank while conscious," according to the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency."

Once again, I am reminded why I LOVE Vegan Outreach. Thank you
for your comments in the latest
issue of Vegan Spam regarding setting priorities. (I have caught
some grief for posting positive reviews of the veggie
burger at Burger King on my vegan website, so I can really
relate to this article.) Thank you for always encouraging people
to look at the big picture!KN, Paradise Valley, AZ, 6/13/02

Upcoming Event

Here, Viva!USA is calling on activists around the U.S. to join in
solidarity on behalf of the animals by organizing an event in your
town. The 10 billion animals (not including sea creatures) killed
yearly for food in the U.S. need your time and voices.

I wrote you some time ago and asked for your advice on being a
healthy vegan in a cafeteria envireonment. i just wanted to say
that your advice is paying off big. I think my metabolism is a
fast one and lack of dairy makes it all the faster. The olive oil
you suggested has helped so so much. Thanks so much for caring
enough to email a person you don't even know and give them thoughtful
advice. that is really very admirable. It really reenforces my
whole vegan descision. AW, 6/14/02

June 12, 2002 – I suspect a lot of people have been confused by the
voluminous exchanges between Robert Cohen and his critics. In my opinion,
the most important issue, Cohen's trustworthiness, has been lost among
some tangential issues and angry exchanges. Cohen frequently analyzes
medical reports and offers nutritional advice, which activists have
accepted as truth (in part, I think, because of his compelling, dynamic
speaking and writing style).

Can Cohen be trusted?

Stephen Walsh first questioned Cohen's analysis of the Hjartaker
et al. report (www.vegsource.com/articles/walsh_openletter.htm)
. Walsh could not understand how Cohen could make the remarkable
claim that Hjartaker et al.'s data revealed the exact opposite of
the authors' conclusions. Walsh suspected that Cohen had fabricated
data as the only possible way that Cohen could arrive at the amazing
statement that moderate or high milk consumption leads to a 6.4 times
greater breast cancer risk than low milk consumption.

Specifically, Hjartaker et al. found that those who consumed
"low" quantities of milk in combined childhood and adulthood
had less than the expected number of breast cancers, given the numbers
of women in the "low" group compared to "moderate"
and "high" groups. For no apparent reason, Cohen claimed
that the number of expected breast cancers in the "low"
group was roughly equal to that of the "moderate" group
plus the "high" group. However, this made no sense, because
the number of women in the "low" group was far lower than
those in the "moderate" plus "high" groups. With
his evidently fabricated data, Cohen then concluded that the Hjartaker
et al. group had perpetrated a fraud and that the number of breast
cancers among low milk consumers was much less than the expected
number.

Walsh asked Cohen to justify
these calculations, and Cohen refused (on the dubious grounds that
Walsh is an "infiltrator" and a "stalker"). I
carefully reviewed the study, and it seemed clear that Cohen must
have indeed fabricated data. Trying to be fair, I privately asked
Cohen to explain his calculations, but Cohen initially evaded my
questions and then cut off communication on the grounds that I had
an "agenda."

Now convinced that Cohen
had fabricated his data, I publicly challenged Cohen to explain his
calculations. As I expected, he continued to obfuscate, claiming
that his essay at notmilk.com clearly explains his analysis and demanding
that those who question him answer unanswerable questions. These
open exchanges encouraged other people, including vegan journalist
Syd
Baumel, to request an explanation. If Cohen could provide an
explanation, it would have been easy to do so. He hasn't provided
an explanation because he can't.

Why should we care?

1. Cohen has made many
dubious scientific claims posted at his web set and distributed
to his 4400 member (moderator only post) nonmilk@yahoogroups.com.
Though he generally makes authoritative claims, they are in fact
poorly documented (at best) and people must accept his claims largely
on faith. His fabricated analysis of the milk/breast cancer study,
alone, demonstrates that he cannot be trusted. The articles, letters,
and emails regarding Cohen published at vegsource.com reveal a
pattern of unfounded, misleading claims. Many of these dubious
claims evidently serve primarily financial concerns, promoting
his soy milk machine over competitors. (See http://www.vegsource.com/articles/061399.notmilk.htm
and www.vegsource.com/articles/walsh_cohen1.htm).

2. Cohen portrays himself
as scientific. Yet, the essays at vegsource.com and my own analysis
betray the falsity of Cohen's assertion, written in response to
the Walsh critique, that "The 1000+ columns that I have written
contain real science, and my analysis of scientific fraud have
continuously withstood the rigorous scrutiny of peer review."
(www.notmilk.com/forum15.txt,
2/8/02 message "True Evil Is Exposed"; www.vegsource.com/articles/cohen/
"The Sad Truth About Robert Cohen").

3. Cohen has maligned
Hjartaker and colleagues, claiming they are perpetrators of "THE
FRAUDULENT STUDY OF THE CENTURY." In fact, Hjartaker et al.
themselves readily acknowledge their study's limitations and advise
caution in interpreting their data. Hjartaker kindly answered my
questions about the study, and I have no reason to believe that
she and her colleagues are not honest, decent people. However,
Cohen goes farther than raise doubts that milk protects against
breast cancer. He accuses the authors of fraud and says that their
data shows that milk causes breast cancer. In fact, Cohen's claims
are the fraudulent ones.

4. Cohen's campaign
against Stephen Walsh has been ugly and false. Walsh is a dedicated
vegan advocate who has raised valid objections to Cohen's writings.
Cohen has responded with a vicious hate campaign (see, for example,
www.notmilk.com/forum15.txt,
2/8/02 message "True Evil Is Exposed"), prompting some
people to call for Walsh's dismissal from his position as a trustee
of the Vegan Society.

5. We have no control over Cohen's private web
site and email list, but giving him 10 presentations
at AR2002 tells the world that the AR movement stands
behind him.

6. Fabricating data,
particularly when done to denounce somebody's academic work, is
sufficient grounds for dismissal from an academic institution (e.g.,
college, graduate school, teaching staff) and to be ostracized
by colleagues. These are the standards of academia. If the animal
advocacy movement is to be taken seriously by thoughtful, educated
people, we must have standards of integrity. Similarly, we do not
deserve the respect of anyone of who values truth in advocacy,
truth in advertising, or journalistic integrity if we countenance
dishonesty within our own ranks while denouncing dishonesty among
our opponents.

I have had no axe to grind
with Cohen. Prior to Walsh's revelations, I had some respect for
Cohen's work (admittedly I had not examined it closely) and my few
personal interactions with him had been pleasant. However, I now
find his behavior outrageous. I'd like to think it's not just me.
While I am academically oriented (I am an Assistant Clinical Professor
at both Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and Northeast
Ohio Universities College of Medicine and I have several published
papers and a chapter in the ophthalmology literature), I think integrity
should transcend the walls of academia. How can we hope to win the
hearts of minds of thoughtful people if we don't show high standards
of integrity?

I dread the prospect of
Cohen being a prominent speaker at a conference for hundreds of young
AR activists anxious to learn how to be more effective advocates
for the cause.